From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: "Michał Przyłuski" <mikylie@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+list@rabbit.us>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Raid6 write performance
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:35:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49AAF19D.8050502@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6c4602af0903011112o440d7a4i22a24b58ada58865@mail.gmail.com>
Michał Przyłuski wrote:
>
> I'm afraid that might be incorrect.
>
> Let's assume we want to write 100MB of data onto a 4 drive raid6.
> Let's divide 100MB of data into two parts, say A and B, each 50MB big.
> Writing the data on the raid, would mean writing:
> * A on disk1
> * B on disk2
> * XOR(A,B) on disk3
> * Q(A,B) on disk4
> That is actually assuming 50MB chunk, and whole chunk writes, etc.
> Each of written portions would have been 50MB in size. That sounds
> reasonable to me, as with 2 data disks, only half of data has to be
> written on each. The fact that disks are really striped with data, XOR
> and Q doesn't change the image in terms of amount written.
>
> I do hope I had understood the situation correctly, but I'll be ever
> happy to be proved wrong.
>
Ah, sorry, yes you're of course right. I was thinking about latency,
not throughput, for some idiotic reason.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-01 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-19 7:40 Raid6 write performance Peter Rabbitson
2009-01-19 8:10 ` thomas62186218
2009-01-19 9:07 ` NiftyFedora Mitch
2009-01-26 18:47 ` Bill Davidsen
2009-01-19 12:48 ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2009-01-19 12:50 ` Peter Rabbitson
2009-01-19 10:37 ` Peter Rabbitson
2009-01-19 10:58 ` Bernd Schubert
2009-01-19 11:01 ` Peter Rabbitson
2009-01-19 11:08 ` Bernd Schubert
2009-02-28 1:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-03-01 19:12 ` Michał Przyłuski
2009-03-01 20:35 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2009-03-01 19:19 ` Peter Rabbitson
2009-03-13 17:11 ` Bill Davidsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49AAF19D.8050502@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikylie@gmail.com \
--cc=rabbit+list@rabbit.us \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).